Wednesday, August 15, 2012

It's the Wrong Way

...
Joe Soptic.  Mitt Romney did not actually kill his wife.
The Obama campaign's attack ad on Romney that features the man who's wife died of cancer after Bain Capital eliminated his job and she lost her insurance employs a reasonable line of attack - it just aims it at the wrong target.  You can demonize Bain and the Private Equity industry for a lot of things, but they neither invented nor specialized in layoffs.  Companies have been adjusting the size of their workforce in both directions since time immemorial, and even in the best Union shops layoffs occur.  The thing is, in most civilized nations your access to health care isn't directly tied to your employment, and even if you can't immediately find another position you can still go to the doctor as necessary.  That's just not the case in the capital of heartless capitalism, the USA.

So targeting Bain and private equity for the woman's death is just too great a stretch, a couple bridges too far if you will.  But that doesn't make Mitt Romney roadkill here, just an innocent bystander who's done nothing wrong.  Obama and the Democratic legislature passed a comprehensive health care bill that would prevent this sort of unnecessary death and suffering due to lack of employment or income.  The ACA, known as Obamacare, provides a facility for (near) universal coverage, either under subsidized private insurance or expanded Medicaid services.  Romney has repeatedly vowed to repeal that legislation.

This makes Andrea Saul's rebuttal of that particular political ad even more galling.  By acknowledging that Mrs. Soptic would not have died if she had only had the good fortune to live in Massachusetts, where none other than Mitt Romney passed a health care reform law that protects the unemployed and uninsured, she reveals the brutal cruelty of the Republican position on the ACA.

So the fair and reasonable attack on Romney's policy agenda is not that his rapacious business killed Mrs. Soptic, but that his policies as President would kill thousands that would otherwise live long, productive lives.  The fact that quantitatively, if not qualitatively, this is much, much worse is not lost on Obama's campaign advisers.  It's just a claim they would hesitate to make, for one because they are very cautious about the way they defend the ACA and because, in a sense, it's got a Godwin/genocide quality to it that they believe makes it off limits.

But ultimately, this is going to have to become part of the campaign narrative.  There is a kind of heartless cruelty, a lack of concern for the vast majority of the American population represented by the Romney policy agenda that voters will have to take into account.  They frame it as "reform" and "sacrifice", and even fiscal discipline, but what it is, as always, is nothing but upward redistribution of wealth.  That's what they do, it is their overriding single policy goal, they just try, with varying degrees of success, to hide it from the voters who would not approve.  Certainly there are Americans who want to see the poor and non-white people suffer and even die, and for them these policies are a feature, not a bug, and they will enthusiastically vote to see them implemented.  And part of what this election is about is that very question:  In these dark times, in a referendum on the cruelty and inequality of the system vs. the compassion of the people, what will a plurality of Americans choose?
...

9 comments:

  1. In these dark times, in a referendum on the cruelty and inequality of the system vs. the compassion of the people, what will a plurality of Americans choose?

    Is that the referendum?

    Obama is going to cut Social Security and Medicare, it's why he made Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles co-chairs of his catfood commission. And as a direct response, you see the Republicans advocating an even more outrageous platform.

    Kang and Kodos are both moving the window to the right. One is pushing it right, and the other is pulling.
    ~

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, your statement is false. I am surprised that I need to remind even YOU that under the American system of governance, Obama does not have the political authority to "cut Social Security and Medicare". What you actually mean is that in his desire to reach a so-called "grand bargain" on the budget deficit Obama is willing to cut SoSec and Medicare benefits in exchange for Republicans allowing increases in tax revenue.

    This is an impasse that will not be resolved under divided government, so we need not worry that it will happen in the next four years - unless Romney wins and the Republicans take the Senate, both increasingly unlikely...

    ReplyDelete
  3. it's why he made Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles co-chairs of his catfood commission.

    I know I was drunk quite a bit, but I missed where the Catfood Commission actually agreed on anything, let alone enacted anything. Simpson and Bowles tried to PRETEND there was a final report, but it was just some much wankery they ejaculated on their own, and the Village punditry bought it of course...

    mikey's post is true and pretty forward looking; but until we get to the point where we have effective modern universal healthcare, using it as a club to beat Rmoney and Lyin Ryan is good enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But ENOUGH OF THAT. I have work to do, missed deadlines and aggravated clients, and I have to stress-test the deck and patio against alcohol or music damage. It's hard work....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Meh. I have to eat a burrito and watch the Giants and Nationals play an afternoon game in the NorCal sunshine. I am once again overwhelmed by my schedule...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fine.

    So when Obama signs cuts to Social Security into law, you will both be shocked and stunned?

    And you'll say what? Oh, it had nothing to do with Obama, Congress made it happen, because I learned how government works in 5th grade?
    ~

    ReplyDelete
  7. Umm, yeah? Congress WOULD be responsible. Are you really taking the position that the President is more responsible for spending bills than congress?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Again, thunder, the proposals of the Simpson-Bowles commission have not become actionable legislation. In fact, the only measurable result of the Commission has been the sequestration effects, which while having further recessionary impacts, make no such changes; in fact, they do make significant cuts to defense spending, which is making the Congresscritters all shit their pants amusingly.

    In addition, the stalemate shows a decent chance of letting all the Bush tax cuts fade away, which would actually go a respectable way towards reducing the actual deficit, as if any legislators cared about that.

    I know you will say that those factors will cause the Grand Bargain Horror to become reality, but as of now, there is no such thing even close to being proposed. So how is that going to happen before Jan 09?

    It is easy to be ever the gorecrow, always forecasting doom; eventually something goes bad and prescience can be claimed. But you have been calling this evil deed from Obama for three years or so now, and no such thing has happened.

    In fact, Biden said unequivocally today that no changes to Social Security would happen. Yeah, it's Biden, and he might walk it back tomorrow. But we can only go by the statements we have, combined with the actions we see.

    In fact, Obama's actions with regard to the ACA have actually strengthened Medicare, by reducing the costs and expanding coverage. Kind of a strange action by someone who is so eager to rip at the social safety net.

    So when Obama signs cuts to Social Security into law, you will both be shocked and stunned?

    And you'll say what? Oh, it had nothing to do with Obama, Congress made it happen, because I learned how government works in 5th grade?

    I know I won't convince, you, you are committed to the nefariousness of all political actors at this point, and you're not entirely wrong. I am certainly not as studied as you are on these issues, I am a simple midwestern zombie and you are right to tell me what's what from your lofty perch.

    But I will guess that what I will say is that thunder was right, and I was wrong. And that it was still a better outcome than if Romney/Ryan were elected, and Medicare was voucherized, SS was sold off to Wall Street, and Griswold/Roe were overturned.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I buy that Obama would do something bad to SS if he could, but I don't think it's gonna happen, either in Congress or in the White House. While the economy is shit I don't believe that stimulus-loving Obama would axe a source of stimulus. Maybe if things were better.

    I think with Erskine-Bowles he had an opportunity to put on a pretty good show to articulate his belief in Social Security by throwing some bucks at well-spoken advocates for it. Why he didn't do that is mysterious. Instead it became just a kicking-the-can-down-the-road thing. That's a huge political miscalculation for a SS advocate, which is harder to believe from his camp than an honest willingness to consider cutting the thing.

    ReplyDelete